Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Richard Babusek who wrote (2816)	5/12/1999 2:32:00 PM
From: Don Lloyd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13056

Richard - (...How does the benevolent counterfeiter differ from the nanny state? In a very real way, a more pure form of “welfare” could be accomplished by just printing the money needed to provide for the needy. No intervention into others lives need be, and the unintended consequences and distortions caused thereby suffered. This method is progressive with infinite resolution. Since basically it devalues the currency, those with more pay more in exact proportion to what they have...) Your counterfeiter will not initiate the Austrian School's boom/bust cycle that occurs when new money effectively flows first into the higher order, capital goods sector leading to overly optimistic over-investment and malinvestment not supported by consumer preferences. The problems will be the same as with other welfare programs in creating corrosive disincentives for potential and actual recipients. Regards, Don

To: Richard Babusek who wrote (2816)	5/12/1999 2:39:00 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13056

Ricardo, there are only two reasons besides the sheer illegality to object to the counterfeiter's activities. The first is that he is hurting as least as much as he is helping, since he is creating disincentives for the poor to improve their lot, or giving cash to addicts and the like. On the other hand, if no one knows of his activities except the beneficiaries, and they do not know that it is ongoing, and so long as he supports no one long term, he cannot create disincentives, and if he is careful in his inquiries, he will rarely merely feed a vice. The other is the potential for inflationary effects. But if he is personally handing out the money, it is unlikely that he will personally inject so much into the money supply to appreciably affect inflation. For those reasons, I would probably leave him be. However, those are also the ways in which he differs from the government, which could cause harm through inflation, and which could cause massive perverse side- effects of through welfare support...

To: Richard Babusek who wrote (2816)	5/26/1999 12:37:00 AM
From: MeDroogies	Respond to of 13056

Economically speaking, your analogy is dead on. Direct cash printing and payment for welfare imposes the same cost on the wealthy, but reduces the control factor. Hence, there is a need to avoid doing that. As for Neocon's point that it would create a "cash addicition"...of course, but isn't that the problem already? Except it isn't cash, but a cash substitute. So, now we can control the lives of the rich AND the poor. Sounds like a great way to prevent people from reaching their true potential. And it's working pretty well so far.